"Xfce is just as customizable as KDE or GNOME, so I set myself a goal: make Xubuntu look like Windows Vista. Though you won't be told how to achieve the exact same end result, this guide provides comprehensive instructions helping you make Xubuntu look the way you want it to. In any case, I would certainly not recommend such a setup for someone new to Xubuntu. Xubuntu is different than Windows; making it look similar is only confusing."

It's because people can and have the freedom to do so. Personally I think it shows just how customizable Linux DE's are without the need of third party utils or programs.

It helps when the Desktop Environment has a format thats standard for icons, png is good because you can make your icon or image in GIMP, rather than having to find the format or convert it. We have SVG which is a standard and great for all kinds of customization, this is one of the many reasons I love Linux DE's, Xfce is real nice BTW.

Personally I think it shows just how customizable Linux DE's are without the need of third party utils or programs.

In fact, it really does. I just could imagine something that's looking more appealing than "Vista", but as it has mentioned before, there are people who like this look and feel, allthough I'd have to admit that I honestly can't consider myself belonging to those people. :-) But we definitely don't need to argue about individual preferences, do we?

Xfce is real nice BTW.

XFCE 4 has developed into a very versatile, flexible, customizable and still ressource saving desktop environment that can lead you to have an "advanced interaction feeling" even on older hardware.

So, you don't need to purchase a new PC to impress your buddies you're running "Vista" now for free and legally. :-)

A final question: In the screenshots, you can see the use of this "Windows" logo, for example here in the lower left corner:

XFCE 4 has developed into a very versatile, flexible, customizable and still ressource saving desktop environment that can lead you to have an "advanced interaction feeling" even on older hardware.

Resource saving? XFCE? Yes, I remember the time when XFCE, while using GTK1.x was actually resource-saving compared to a full blown gnome desktop. Nowdays it's almost identical to gnome.

In fact, any GTK2 application, thanks to Cairo, Pango and whatever, is actually slower than any recent QT app. By an order of magnitude.

Very sad.

I've tried "xubuntu" on a 400Mhz box a couple of weeks ago, and I can assure Windows XP has an overall better responsive UI, just thanks to XFCE.

So, you don't need to purchase a new PC to impress your buddies you're running "Vista" now for free and legally. :-)

The actual buddy I tried to impress with Xubuntu and OpenOffice returned to XP with his old Office 2000. The combination was way faster that I can't blame him. Even trimming down all the eye-candy and blinking features didn't help reaching the same performance.

And I'm saying this as a GTK and OSS supporter. They should stop saying Xubuntu is a "lighter" desktop. Xubuntu is just an alternative desktop.